Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents The Internet Your Rights Online

Revised W3C Patent Policy Out, Comments Invited 95

Posted by timothy from the fine-toothed-comb dept.
Janet Daly, W3C writes "Today, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) began what it expects to be the final review of the proposed Royalty-Free Patent Policy. A new draft has been published; the review period has been extended to allow for public and W3C Member comments alike. Review closes 30 April 2003. The press release and summary give a short version of goals and changes of the policy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Revised W3C Patent Policy Out, Comments Invited More

Revised W3C Patent Policy Out, Comments Invited

Comments Filter:

  • FSF's position (Score:5, Interesting)

    by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @01:58PM (#5545366) Homepage Journal
    Here are FSF's views [gnu.org] on the (previous version of the) royalty-free patent policy.
    • While it's true that the W3C policy could be abused so as to limit actual use of an algorithm in GPL code, it's still a big step in the right direction, and I doubt any organizations will be able to inject such pathological standards successfully.

      The FSF's example of a Koqueror version that parses URLs and a server-side script that do the same thing seems a bit contrived. Wouldn't the server-side script be considered an implementation of the standard as well, even though it eventually acts as a clien

    • I found that this version [gnu.org] made just as much sense as your linked version, but then IANAL.
    • I like how in that linked document, they talk how the FSF (represented by Eben Moglen, a law professor) participated, but then later in the article say
      They could distribute under GPL, but they would be granting a self-contradicting license. Nothing (to my knowledge, but IANAL)
      So who wrote the article? And for something this important, wouldn't it be worth it to get someone, who, um, IAL (is a lawyer) ??
    • The FSF has expanded the explanation of its position [gnu.org] (about which I asked Eben Moglen in his slashdot interview [slashdot.org]), but I still don't buy it.

      Under Section 7, the "field of use" restriction is a "conditions are imposed on you [the distributor of GPL'ed software] that contradict the conditions of this License". The "conditions of this license" require, for example, that those receiving distributions of GPL'ed software have the right to run the program for any purpose (Section 0), the right to modify it for

  • w3c standards don't matter to Slashdot (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @02:06PM (#5545443)
    Every try to validate [w3.org] one of these pages? Ha! Good luck on that. They've actually FORBIDDEN the w3c validator from looking at the pages!

  • hmm... (Score:2, Funny)

    by gid13 ( 620803 )
    do i hear one-click shopping? :)

  • my thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cultobill ( 72845 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @02:13PM (#5545530)
    This is a Good Thing. The W3C should patent most of it's standards so that assholes can't. It raises the issue, though, of trusting the W3C members to not be those assholes that this protects against. An explicit policy on how they deal with patents can assure us that the patents won't be abused.

    One question is, how binding is this? If a member of the W3C patents a process then starts telling people to pay up (a few years down the line, maybe), is this really any protection?
    • ICANN, anybody?
      • ICANN has its power because the US Government gives it to them (FTC, IIRC).

        W3C has its power because of the good will of the community, deserved because they usually do a good job.

        If they start to get all crazy on us, we can safely ignore them and form another standards organization. It's a good incentive for them not to get all crazy on us, should such an idea ever cross their minds.

    • Re:my thoughts (Score:3, Informative)

      by Zathrus ( 232140 )
      One question is, how binding is this? If a member of the W3C patents a process then starts telling people to pay up (a few years down the line, maybe), is this really any protection?

      Yes it is. If you are part of a standard's committee, and part of the committee's rules of participation state that you must disclose (and/or license at little or no cost) any intellectual property rights that are relevant to a standard you're involved in, then you can't submarine IP and expect to collect on it. It's been rule

    • Re:my thoughts (Score:3, Informative)

      by SquarePants ( 580774 )
      I think you have mis-read (or not-read) the press release. This is not about the W3C patenting anything. This is about members of the W3C waiving any patent rights they have to inventions which are incorporated into standards while they are members and participate in the creation of the standard.

      However, the most important effect will be that members will have to "put up or shut up." From this standpoint this is a good step. A member who knows that a standard it is contributing to will incorporate subj
      • Checking at 7:52 GMT on 19 March 2003, I discover that this press release is in Japanese. Or Chinese. I don't really know the difference. But I'm guessing Japanese.

  • Explain these things to me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by knobmaker ( 523595 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @02:14PM (#5545535) Homepage Journal

    I guess I'm just stuck in the last century, because I don't really understand the whole thing. I didn't have the patience to read the draft, but I read the press release, and I'm scratching my head over the whole idea of software patents. It's been a long time since I did any coding (anyone working with the 6502 any more?) but I seem to remember that there were always an infinite number of ways to accomplish any programming task. How do you patent one way, and then claim that no one's allowed to use another way to do the same thing? Or am I completely confused here? (I admit that this is almost a certainty.)

    As a writer, I can't help but make comparisons with copyright law, another form of abstract intellectual property protection. If you're a writer, you can't copyright ideas. If I want to write a book about a great white whale, I can. I can even call it Moby Dick, and not just because Melville's copyright has expired. Titles cannot be copyrighted. So how come, for example, the .gif standard can be patented?

    Of course, I may have completely misunderstood all of this. In which case, never mind.

    • You're entirely right, Its nonsensical bullshit. You overlooked the most important step, step 3) Profit!

      There is lots of money to be made from software patents, so it dosnt matter how stupid the idea is- it will work.

    • Re:Explain these things to me (Score:5, Informative)

      by critter_hunter ( 568942 ) <critter_hunter@hotm a i l .com> on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @02:26PM (#5545654)

      GIFs aren't patented. A compression algorithm used in GIFs is (the LZW algorithm). The GIMP (and perhaps other graphic manipulation software) allow you to create uncompressed GIFs, which are perfectly legal.

      I don't think gif is a standard anyway, nor has it ever been one.

      • Re:Explain these things to me (Score:4, Interesting)

        by knobmaker ( 523595 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @02:42PM (#5545812) Homepage Journal
        GIFs aren't patented. A compression algorithm used in GIFs is (the LZW algorithm).

        I appreciate the clarification, but this is exactly what I'm wondering about. How do you patent an algorithm and then attach it to a process that could be performed by another algorithm just as capably? I understand the logistics problems here-- if your browser attempts to open an image compressed by an unknown algorithm, it can't. And I think I understand why the royalty-free patent standard is being proposed-- as a defensive measure against stuff being admitted to the standard and then used to extort fees from programmers who use the stuff.

        I just don't understand the logical basis for software patents.

        • It's trivial...the LZW patent expired a couple months ago ;-)
        • Logical basis? The reason software patents are Teh Suxx0r(tm) is because software is a big black box.

          From the patenter's point of view, you patent "LZW compression in a GIF" (or some other "process"), then go after anyone writing GIFs. You get to court and after legal fees and court costs go "Ooops, my bad, I had no idea they didn't use LZW". Small companies settle out of court, just to avoid the chance that the judge was smoking something just before the trial or because they have no clue whether they
        • You didn't used to be able to patent software at all. Then Intel came up with this ROM (or FPLA), and patented it as a machine for implementing an algorithm. Things degenerated rapidly from there. Also, during that period, the Patent Office changed it's purpose into a tax collecting agency, and it's purpose became to grant as many patents as possible, and let the courts sort it out.

          Now my understanding is that clerks are essentially paid by the number of patents they grant (well, their performance evalu
    • I'm not aware of much 6502 coding going on anymore, but I remember the C64 Macro Assembler with much fondness. The basic thing you missed was a very stupid ruling during the Reagan administration (big surprise) that allowed the patenting of software and mathmatical algorithms. Prior to this ruling, they were unpatentable. Software patents are not like normal patents -- a software patent doesn't cover any specific code, it covers a concept. Yes, this is a complete violation of what patents are supposed t
      • Hope this helps explain the situation.

        Yeah, it does. And I'm somewhat reassured to discover that I haven't fallen into the rabbit hole all by myself. From what you say, software patents are just another manifestation of the madness of crowds, and have no basis in rationality.

        Good enough for me. I'll just try not to think about it. I'm confused enough as it is.

    • It matters I suppose. I have no prob with /. posting these kinds of articles, but to appreciate this news bit you have to be a geek AND a lawyer. Or at least be really knowledgable about patent law. I am not as such, probably most everyone here is the same (makes for some interesting uninformed posts though).

      I know enough about programming and network administration and such, but patent law just doesn't have any logic to it as far as I can tell.
    • >I guess I'm just stuck in the last century,
      >because I don't really understand the whole
      >thing. I didn't have the patience to read the
      >draft, but I read the press release, and I'm
      >scratching my head over the whole idea of
      >software patents.
      I bet.

      >It's been a long time since I did any coding
      >(anyone working with the 6502 any more?)
      I write a program that emulates a 6502-based computer (Apple //e with 3136K RAM).

      >but I seem to remember that there were always an
      >infinite number of

  • License revocation on lawsuit . . . (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SquareOfS ( 578820 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @02:26PM (#5545661)
    Most comments will probably be about what the FSF got exercised [gnu.org] over, namely the restriction of the royalty free license to standard implementations. The summary page [w3.org] mentioned in the article, however, also has an interesting point:
    • The license may be suspended if the licensee sues the licensor.
    (Disclaimer: IANAL, nor have I yet waded through the legalese of the proposal itself -- just the summary)

    Does that mean that the following can happen:

    1. Entity A implements a W3C standard, in the process receiving a royalty-free license for some implicated technology from Entity B.
    2. A distributes its implementation.
    3. time passes . . .
    4. A sues B on an unrelated matter, say for example, getting B to abide by the terms of an open-source license.
    5. B suspends A's royalty-free license on the technology in the standard implementation.
    6. All distributions of A's implementation now in license limbo courtesy of a suit on an unrelated matter?
    How on earth can this be a good idea?
    • The "legalese" states that the license "may be suspended with respect to any licensee when licensor is sued by licensee for infringement of claims essential to implement any W3C Recommendation."

      Therefore, although the lawsuit does not have to be related to the particular W3C standard that is subject to the license, it must be related to a patent governing a W3C standard.
    • Presumably the intent is that the suit has to be in relation to the standard in question. I suspect that is so obvious that they didn't feel the need to state it explicitly? (or perhaps they did, elsewhere?)

    • Since other folks clarified that the suit needs to be about patents that are claimed to be essential for implementing W3C specifications, it just remains to fill out point 1 and swap A and B in your point 4:

      1. Entities A, B ..Z implement a W3C standard, in the process receiving a royalty-free license for some implicated technology from Entities A, B ...Z.

      4. B sues A on a related matter, for example they claim a patent on some essential W3C technology

      As a result:

      5. A sends B their new license terms for t

  • The policy promotes the widespread implementation of W3C Recommendations first by making the W3C Royalty-Free License requirements clear and enforceable

    Like all/any the other insane EULA's, web patents and service agreements floating out there, how is this enforceable? Like previous posts, w3c can't even 'enforce' the html standard. I'm sure that enforcing anything web related is high on the FBI's list of priorities.

    • You will notice that W3C standards are called "recommendation". They're not supposed to be enforced in any way. This License, however, seems to me more like a contract. By making your patented technlogy into a W3C standard you agree that you lose the right to collect royalties for this technology in areas covered by the standard. The patent holder relinquishes his rights willingly, and this license is there to make sure that the patent holder doesn't change it's mind once the standard is everywhere, like it

    • The patent policy will be enforceable because whenever someone signs up to participate in the development of a spec at W3C, they will have to agree to abide by the terms of the patent policy. I won't rule out someone showing up later and saying that they didn't really mean to agree or that they had their fingers crossed behind their back when they checked the 'I agree...' box, but I don't see these excuses as holding much legal water. For better or worse, the enforcing a legal commitment like the patent pol

  • Simple solution (Score:2, Redundant)

    by David_Bloom ( 578245 )
    If a certain way to do something is the market leader (e.g. GIF on web pages), all the patents applicable to that particular way to do something (such as LZW compression, but only if you are compressing a GIF) should be nullified. That way, patent owners (e.g. Unisys) will not be rewarded by making "trojan patents": patents that the owner really doesn't enforce until they have become part of a standard (such as lossless image compression).
    • it chooses the 256 colors that fit the image best, then maps all the true colors to those. Doesn't seem lossless to me
      • Wrong. GIF is a lossless 256-colour image format. If you compress a 256-colour image with GIF, you'll get exactly the same image when you decompress it.

        But if your image has more than 256 colours, you'll have to convert it into a 256-colour image format before you can even contemplate making it into a GIF.

        "Lossy" is a way of describing data compression schemes, not colour depths, and the loss you get from converting to a 256-colour GIF is the same kind of loss you'd get if you decided to make a 256-colo

  • Responsibility to the community (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NtroP ( 649992 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @02:43PM (#5545831)
    You can't copyright a concept - there are too many ways for people to come up with it independently. However, you can copyright a specific formula or algorithm as a means to an end. Companies who have invested time and money in perfecting these formulas should have the right to benefit from this.

    BUT, IMHO, as soon as you try to make it a "standard" - thus forcing the world to use it, you should be required to make it royalty free and fully documented. There is a certain responsibility to the larger community for any organization or company that finds itself in this possition.

    Information is too important to risk limiting its exchange. Case-in-point: M$ word documents. The "defacto standard" for document exchange is Microsoft's Office formats. However, the formats aren't fully documented and are at risk of changing with every new version of office. We would love to be able to ditch Office for an open-source (open format) solution, but we deal with other companies and government agencies who expect documents in Office format and send documents in Office format to us. It's a catch 22. We can't move to an open standard format without having a (redundant) system to be able to communicate with "the other 95%".

    M$ has every right to sell their products. They have worked hard on them. However, because the formats have become the "standard", (and Microsoft has been doing everything it can to make it that way), M$ should be forced to open the format and fully document it, so that others don't have to reverse engineer it every time, to inter-operate. An open standard does not preclude MS from selling office. If it is the best product, it will sell. But an open standard for document exchange will allow true competition, and hence greater product improvement, by allowing software companies to compete on the technical merits of their products instead of on a closed format.

    The same concept goes for audio and video. If you're going to call it a "standard" you shouldn't be able to charge for it. Charge for your product, not for the method of data exchange.

    My $.02

    • Actually, you cannot "copyright a specific formula or algorithm." Copyrights protect the expression of an idea, not the idea iself. For this reason, the law eliminates copyright protection when there is only one way to express an idea (this is called the "doctrine of mergers" as in where the idea merges with the expression). Otherwise, by copyrighting the expression, the author would get exclusive rights to the idea.

      An algorithm or formula is a prefect example of an idea which can be expressed in only o
  • I remember a previous discussion of the mono project, where someone said that M$ might file .net for W3C standard. This would ensure that nomo wouldn't be sued from here to oblivion.
  • W3C Working Draft 14 November 2002:

    5.3. PAG Conclusion

    After appropriate consultation, the PAG may conclude:

    1. The initial concern has been resolved, enabling the Working Group to continue.
    2. The Working Group should be instructed to consider designing around the identified claims.
    3. The Team should seek further information and evaluation, including and not limited to evaluation of the patents in question or the terms under which acceptable licensing may be available.
    4. The Working Group s
  • It's still a bit too friendly towards patents, however. I don't feel that anything that calls itself a standards body should promote "standards" that are hindered by patents (i.e., where the patent is not licensed for all standard implementing uses). But outside of that it sounds pretty good. (If I were voting on this, of course, I'd give it a lot closer study... but just as a bystander it looks pretty good.)

    Of course, this depends on it being binding on the committee members, and their companies, but
  • Coverage at CNET [com.com] indicates that the W3C may be softening it's Royalty-Free Standard Licensing stance. Please read Adam Warner's W3C Patent policy page [macrology.co.nz] on why RAND is not an option for Open Standard Licensing and email your comments to the W3C Patent Policy mailing list [mailto]!
  • I can understand the thinking that went into the exception clause--they're allowed to include a patented, non-royalty-free technology in a standard if basically everybody (including the public?) agrees. The idea here is if something so crucial, so important comes along, well, we'd want it.

    The problem is, announcing this up front could still encourage companies (who want to make money) to try patenting things and springing them further down the road (before it becomes an official standard but after everybo

  • The most controversial part remains, sadly.

    From section 5. W3C Royalty-Free (RF) Licensing Requirements:

    "With respect to a Recommendation developed under this policy, a W3C Royalty-Free license shall mean a non-assignable, non-sublicensable license to make, have made, use, sell, have sold, offer to sell, import, and distribute and dispose of implementations of the Recommendation that: [...]

    3. may be limited to implementations of the Recommendation, and to what is required by the Recommendation"

    This mean

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close